Shoop v. Twyford

"A transportation order that allows a prisoner to search for new evidence is not 'necessary or appropriate in aid of' a federal court’s adjudication of a habeas corpus action, 28 U.S.C. §1651(a), when the prisoner has not shown that the desired evidence would be admissible in connection with a particular claim for relief."

Respondent was convicted of murder and sought to have Petitioner transport him to a medical facility for testing to gather evidence for his habeas petition. The District Court and the Sixth Circuit granted Respondent’s motion for transport, finding the motion proper under the All Writs Act. Petitioner argued that Respondent did not demonstrate how the evidence he expected to gather would help his habeas petition. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that a transportation order to gather new evidence for a habeas petition is not proper under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). The Court reasoned that the AEDPA governs habeas relief and limits new evidence to “previously unavailable evidence” subject to a new retroactive law that could not have been discovered during the original trial. The Court further reasoned that habeas relief is bound by the AEDPA and the All Writs Act could not be used to gather evidence that would be unusable under the AEDPA. Respondent had not demonstrated how the evidence would be usable under the AEDPA. Accordingly, the motion for transport was not proper. REVERSED.